The Pulaski citizen. [volume] (Pulaski, Tenn.) 1866-current, 1887-08-18

ster says they are laws that re
strain or limit the expenses of citi-
zens in apparel, food, furniture or
the like" Worcester says they are
claws intended to restrain the ex-
peHditure of citizens" How ac-
cording to Webster does the prohi-
bition amendment apply to either
food or furniture?
1t may embrace drinks under the
words ''or the like" But does the
proposed amendment restrain or
limit ones drinking? 1t surely does
not. There is no restriction what
ever upon ones drinking whisky if
he can get possession of it-and il
is always obtalnable in states, by |
purchase, where such an amend
meut does not apply, and could be
manufactured here as now to drink |
ad Lbttuns bat not to-sell as a bever
age. Take Worcester: The amend
ment ia not intended to restrain
the expenditure of citizens. The
intention of the amendment, as
understand it, Is for the preserva-
sion OF law and order and to ere
strain" vice and crime | acknowl
edge that the national democratic
platform has plank against sump-
tuary laws; but according to both
Webster and Worcester the amend
ment would not be q sumptuary
law. If it is, then the democracy
Of Tennessee, whose disciples have
made our various statutory laws
upon the subject of selling whisky,
has wantonly disregarded it. The
democratic legislatures of Tennes-
see have given US prohibition 80 far
as Sunday and election days are
concerned, also in the four mile law
statute which prohibits the selling
n giving away Intoxicating liquors
on the Sabbath or election days and
prohibits the selling within four
miles of an institution of learning
if not located within an incorporat
ed town. What democrat objects to
these lawo because Of their sumptu
ary character? Who among deno-
Gratis would remove all restraint and
throw open the saloon on the Sab
bath end election days? And who
wants the four mile law statute re
pealed?
But those Of my democratic
friends who oppose this amendment
must, to be consistent, be for the re-
peal of these statutes. They are
certainly as much sumptuery in
sheir character as the amendment,
though according to both Webster
and Worcester none Of them are
sumptuary. Mr.. Vertrees, the dis
tinguished young democratic cham
pion of Tennessee, makes about a
ten column argument in the Ameri
can against the amendment. Two
columns are devoted to show that it
is undemocFatic. In this he quotes
Jefferson, Seymour, Tilden and
| Davis, and also the plank of the
| Chicago platform which opposes
-'sumptuary laws" But he fails to
refer to the Tennessee democratic
platform of 'S6 on the subject,
which is the latest and really the
Only thing applicable TO the case il
| point. To this platform democrats
Of Tennessee are bound until the
convention again meets in 'SS to
formulate another. The 0th and
last plank says 1--WE favor submit
ting to them (the- people, for theiI
adoption or rejection the proposed
constitutional Amendment"
To be submitted must it not first
pass the legislature? Is not thi.
plank then instruoting democrats
gho will be instructed to vote for iii
Does this not make the amend
ment democratic SO far as Tennes
see Is concerned? And having
passed the two houses almost unan-
jmously, each composed OF large
ajority of democrats, and thus
commended to the people, how is il
| otherwise than democratic? Blu
suppose it is undemocratic-w which
is by no means conceded-by con
dieting with the views of distin-
/ guished democrats like those men
toned, should we oppose it for that
reason, only when We would other
wise acknowledge it's merits and ex
! cellence? and when too it can bt
shown that Just as good democrats
favor it as oppose it? 1t is in ne
sense a party question though &
, political one. Upon it democrats ant
, republicans ere each divided. Bur
my object is not 20 argue for The
amendment. To much OF Mr.. vs.
address assent, especially in bis
. position that 1t is neither "enab
ling" nor "aelf-erforcing" and that
If it is ratified its operation depends
'upon the Legislative discretion OF
future general assemblies" and
: thst the amendment per Sc will be
inefficient as to prohibition but, VIZ
! should expect that if the people
: cow endorse it, they will see that il
: is enforced by proper Legislative
= enactments. ] repeat, my object it
, not so much for the amendment as
for the cause OF democracy. The
course taken by Mr.. Vertrces and
other democrats / believe is not
only indiscreet and unwise but
= greatly impolitic. Don't you know
that if the democrats as q party will
vote against it, and thet because il
} is undemocratic, the republicans al
most 10 q man will vote for III
Nothing is palmer. And is it nos
p clear that there are thousands OF
. democrats in Tennessee who eati-
mate prohibition higher than demo
cracy? Satisfy these democrats
that their darling measure can get
no aid from the democratic party
and they will do one of two things
They will either form n prohibition
) political party or align themselves
? with that party that is more fayora
BILE to their measure. In either CASE
= the democratic party in Tennessee
! would be so weakened that it's sue
7 cess would he greatly endangered
!. and become Prohlematical. Tn,
8 republicans are too well organized
and too loyal to their party to go of
on opv aldo icane Tban / raraot n